【자료】오키나와현의 <공유수면 매립 승인 취소 통지서>

[해설] 2018년 8월 31일, 오키나와현의 도미카와 모리다케(富川盛武), 쟈하나 키이치로(謝花喜一郎) 부지사가 전임 나카이마 히로카즈(仲井眞弘多)지사에 의한 헤노코 공유수면(公有水面) 매립 승인을 철회했다. 31일에 열린 기자회견에서 ‘공유 수면 매립법’에 근거해 적정한 판단을 내렸다고 말했다. 일본 정부는 이에 따라 신기지 건설을 진행할 법적 근거를 잃었고, 공사는 중지할 수밖에 없게 되었다.

매립 승인 철회 사유는 다음과 같다.
1. 사전 협의 없이 공사를 시작한 것은 위법행위이다.
2. 나카이마 전 지사가 공사를 승인한 후 드러난 문제를 해결하려는 움직임이 없다. 새롭게 드러난 문제점은 다음과 같다.
① 연약 지반의 존재
② 활단층의 존재
③ 활주로 주변이 고도 제한에 저촉
④ 후텐마비행장 반환 조건에는 헤노코 이외에 충분한 길이의 활주로(나하공항) 확보가 조건이었다.
3. 헤노코 기지 건설 공사는 산호군락과 듀공 서식지 파괴 등 환경보전에 지장을 초래한다.

오키나와현은 기자회견에서 승인 철회가 정치적 판단에서 비롯된 것이 아니라 위법 상태를 방치할 수 없다는 행정 원리 차원에서 이루어진 것이라는 입장을 분명히 했다.

오키나와현이 2018년 8월 31일에 오키나와 방위국에 전달한 ‘공유수면 매립 승인 철회 통지서’

(Temporary Translation)
(Appendix)

Grounds for revocation

No. 1 The requirement of “appropriate and rational use of national land” (Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Act) is not satisfied. 1 Through a soil survey conducted after disposition of approval, it was discovered that the seabed in the target reclamation area unexpectedly possesses special topographical and geological features, and it was recognized that this was not consistent with a “suitable location in light of use as a reclamation site” (1) The ground soil condition and planned soil layer of planned revetment site C as part of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma (MCAS FUTENMA) alternative facility construction project (hereinafter, “this reclamation project”) are indicated in Attachment 2: Design Overview Document (hereinafter, “the design overview document”) of the application document for approval for reclamation of public waters (hereinafter, “the application document”) submitted by the Okinawa Defense Bureau (hereinafter, “ODB”) to Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, in response to questions from Okinawa Prefecture that arose during the examination process for the approval for reclamation of public waters, the ODB stated that it had “determined that the possibility of ground liquefaction is low. In addition, as for consolidation settlement of the ground, as indicated in the geological strata cross-section diagram no viscous soil layer has been confirmed that might cause subsidence, so it is assumed that consolidation settlement will not occur directly under the planned site.” Accordingly, the application for reclamation of public waters was approved as of December 27, 2013 (Okinawa Prefectural Civil Engineering Directive No. 1321 / Okinawa Prefectural Agriculture Directive No. 1721, dated December 27, 2013; hereinafter, “approval given for this project”). This approval was premised upon the description in the design overview document and the soil conditions, etc. indicated in the answer given by the ODB. However, a soil survey conducted after approval was given for this project clearly shows that planned revetment site C possesses special topographical and geological features that had not been foreseen at time of approval, and the risk is recognized that ground liquefaction may occur due to extremely loose sandy soil or extremely soft viscous soil or that consolidation settlement or similar may occur if revetments, etc. are constructed in the relevant location. In addition, Cape Henokozaki and Oura Bay, where the reclamation project is to be carried out, have a very distinctive ecological system seen only here in

2

Japan; however, if foundation improvement work is carried out on the seafloor, this will affect the growth of coral species and other marine organisms due to turbidity and other factors caused by construction. Furthermore, as it became clear that the site possesses special topographical and geological features that had not been foreseen at time of approval, in construction of the MCAS FUTENMA alternative facility (hereinafter, “Henoko New Base”), the necessity of certain construction work unforeseen at time of approval of this reclamation project was recognized, and it is also recognized that relocation from MCAS FUTENMA at an early date by construction of the Henoko New Base will not be possible. In light of the facts outlined above, which were discovered after approval was given for this project, it has been recognized that the examination criteria for approval for reclamation of public waters (which ask “Is the site for reclamation in a suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site?”) have not been met, and that this reclamation project does not satisfy the requirement of “appropriate and rational use of national land”— thus, it has been concluded that upholding the validity of the approval given for this project is not consistent with the public interest. (2) In response to this, the ODB claims that having made a comprehensive judgment based on the results of the boring survey, etc., it wishes to consider implementation planning, environmental conservation measures, etc. and then discuss these matters with Okinawa Prefecture, and does not intend to proceed with construction work without reporting or consulting on the results of this consideration. However, as a result of the soil survey, it is clear that the target reclamation area possesses special topographical and geological features not foreseen at time of approval of this project, and the selection of the location itself has been judged as not consistent with a “suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site.” In addition, despite being unable to confirm safety and environmental impact, etc. without considering overall construction, and although Okinawa Prefecture has repeatedly given instructions to halt construction work and show the overall implementation plan and to consult on this matter, the ODB has continued to unilaterally undertake this construction work, clearly expressing its intent not to obey these administrative instructions and to proceed with construction work without undertaking to show the overall construction design or consult on this matter, and has failed to show implementation planning for the overall construction work. Given this, it is only natural that the ODB will judge that requirements have been met accordance with the design overview. Furthermore, if the ODB seeks to undertake

3

construction of revetments in accordance with the design overview, it is presumed that this construction could not be completed because the safety of the C revetments is not recognized. Moreover, even assuming construction work could be completed by making drastic design changes, the likelihood of environmental impact caused by construction of soft ground countermeasures, etc. and the lengthy extension of the construction period itself are undeniable; even more significantly, this construction is recognized as being inconsistent with the requirement “Is the site for reclamation in a suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site?” Given the above, there are no grounds for the ODB’s claim

2 The results of a soil survey conducted after approval was given for this project indicate that an active fault exists on the seabed in the reclamation area, which has been recognized as being inconsistent with a “suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site” (1) The literature shows that an active fault known as the Henoko Fault exists in the land area near the reclamation site (Soichi Osozawa & Yasushi Watanabe; “Geology of Nago & Yanbaru,” 2011). If the line of the Henoko Fault is extended to the sea, it is understood that this line extends along steep slopes of valley topography or valley walls on the seafloor (hereinafter, “seafloor valley topography”). As part of this reclamation project, facilities such as airport runways are to be constructed directly above this seafloor valley topography. However, after approval was given for this project, the geologist Professor Emeritus Yuzo Kato of the University of the Ryukyus (hereinafter, “Professor Emeritus Kato”) pointed out his estimation that the seafloor valley topography of the seafloor at the planned reclamation site indicates the position of an active fault; moreover, Soichi Osozawa (hereinafter, “Mr. Osozawa”), the author of the above-listed “Geology of Nago & Yanbaru”, also indicated that in his judgment, he recognizes this seafloor valley topography as an active fault. Selection of a location where the existence of an active fault has been pointed out as a reclamation site for the construction of the Marine Corps Air Station is inconsistent with the examination criteria for approval for reclamation of public waters (which ask “Is the site for reclamation in a suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site?”); thus, it is recognized that reclamation of the Henoko coastline to construct the Henoko New Base, a Marine Corps Air Station, does not satisfy the requirement of “appropriate and rational use of national land,” and the situation is now such that upholding the validity of the approval given for this project is not consistent with the public interest. (2) In response to this, the ODB claims that the Henoko Fault is not treated as an

4

active fault in the existing literature (“Active Fault Database of Japan” & “Digital Active Fault Map of Japan”). However, even where an active fault exists, the Active Fault Database of Japan does not record it if under 10 km in length. The geological map published in “Geology of Nago & Yanbaru” lists the Henoko Fault as 8.5 km in length … meaning that it does not satisfy the recording criterion in the existing literature because it does not reach 10 km in length; accordingly, the fact that the Henoko Fault is not described as an active fault in the literature does not serve as a rationale to deny that it is an active fault. Moreover, in the Digital Active Fault Map of Japan, even when existence of an active fault is confirmed by a geological outcrop on the surface, if the corresponding topography is not recognized, then it is not certified as an active fault; thus, in this literature, even where an active fault exists it may not be displayed. As outlined above, neither of these documents necessarily lists all active faults even when these are confirmed to exist; thus, it is impossible to deny the existence of an active fault on the basis that it is not described in either of these documents, and there are no grounds for the ODB’s claim. In addition, the ODB claims that Professor Emeritus Kato’s hypothesis that the aforementioned seafloor valley topography represents an active fault is difficult to understand, and also claims that the grounds for Mr. Osozawa’s judgment are unclear. However, the hypothesis-forming process shown in Professor Emeritus Kato’s opinion is considered to be logical and based on concrete grounds and it is not possible to say that grounds for Mr. Osozawa’s judgment are unclear, as this judgment has been shown to be based on knowledge gained by investigation of the Henoko Fault and acoustic exploration cross-sections and boring specimens, etc. acquired through the soil survey carried out after approval was given for this project. It is recognized that geological experts indicate the existence of an active fault based on concrete grounds, and there are no grounds for the ODB’s claim in this regard.

3 In the US Defense Department’s “UFC 3-260-01 Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design” Unified Facilities Criteria (Updated November 2008; hereinafter “Unified Criteria”), for the purpose of safe navigation of aircraft, height restrictions are set above approach-departure surfaces, horizontal surfaces, etc. (hereinafter, “height restrictions”) for the peripheral space around each airfield. With respect to height restrictions over horizontal surfaces, these are set to 45.72 meters above the runway in a 2,286-meter radius from the central point of the runway. Since the runways of Henoko New Base will be at about 8.8 meters when converted to altitude above sea level, height restrictions will be set in a range exceeding an

5

altitude of about 54.52 meters above sea level. However, if Henoko New Base was to be completed and used as a Marine Corps Air Station, many structures in the surrounding area would be in breach of these height restrictions, including school buildings at the National Institute of Technology, Okinawa College, the ammunition warehouse in the U.S. military ammunition store at Henoko, metal pylons belonging to telecommunications carriers and the Okinawa Electric Power Company, and public buildings such as Kube Elementary and Junior High Schools, as well as private houses and apartments. Selection of a location where existing buildings and structures are in conflict with the Unified Criteria’s listed height restrictions as a reclamation site for the construction of an airfield is inconsistent with the examination criteria for approval for reclamation of public waters (which ask “Is the site for reclamation in a suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site?”); thus, it is recognized that reclamation of the Henoko coastline to construct the Henoko New Base, a Marine Corps Air Station, does not satisfy the requirement of “appropriate and rational use of national land.” In this regard, the ODB does not deny that there are buildings and structures that conflict with these height restrictions, but rather lays forth an argument that these represent exemptions from the Unified Criteria. However, height restrictions above horizontal surfaces are established to ensure the safety of aircraft performing circular maneuvers or low-altitude flying, etc. and to ensure that aircraft can take off and land safely. Seen from the viewpoint of residents, if buildings or other structures are in conflict with height restrictions, in cases where these might hinder the safe navigation of aircraft, and even where these are consistent with exemptions from the Unified Critieria, it is undeniable that residents will be constantly concerned about the risk of damage due to aircraft accidents, etc.

4 Even if the Henoko New Base is completed, it has become clear that MCAS Futenma will not be returned unless the conditions of return under the integration plan are satisfied; thus, this is recognized as being inconsistent with a “suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site” as well as “sufficient value to justify abolishing public waters for land use as the motivation for reclamation” At Japan’s House of Councillors Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense meeting on June 6, 2017, Minister of Defense Tomomi Inada responded that, “Regarding improvement of use of private-sector facilities in times of emergency, as there are no specific details at the present time we will continue to consult and coordinate with the US side. Regarding the explanation of Ministry of Defense officials at the gathering where this was pointed out, and the concrete details of

6

this explanation, as this is premised on consultation with the US side, in order to see MCAS Futenma returned, the necessity of satisfying the conditions of return (including improvement of use of private-sector facilities in times of emergency) was stated. In regard to this point, in the absence of any specific consultation or detail-based coordination with the US side in the future, the conditions for return will not be met and MCAS Futenma will not be returned.” Thus, it has become evident that even if the Henoko New Base is completed, MCAS Futenma will not be returned unless the other conditions of return are in place. As one reason for taking the position that there are no options for relocation within Okinawa Prefecture other than Henoko, in Attachment 1: Statement of reasoning for necessity of reclamation (hereinafter, “statement of reasoning for necessity of reclamation”) of the application document for approval for reclamation of public waters the ODB stated that this site will enable it to “secure the required land area, including runways.” However, the fact that the runway lengths are short as stated in the report by the US Government Accountability Office can be described as a functional defect; moreover, given that the Minister of Defense has responded that MCAS Futenma will not be returned unless the condition for return of “improvement of use of private-sector facilities” is established, it has become evident that construction of the Henoko New Base cannot “secure the required land area, including runways.” In accordance with facts that came to light after approval was given for this project, it is recognized as being inconsistent with the examination criteria that apply to the “necessity of reclamation”— namely, a “suitable location in light of the intended use of the reclamation site” as well as “sufficient value to justify abolishing public waters for land use as the motivation for reclamation.” Moreover, even if Henoko New Base is successfully constructed, if the “improvement of use of private facilities” condition for return is not met MCAS Futenma will not be returned. It is now clear that the statement “Eliminating the risks of MCAS Futenma at an early stage is necessary, and having a plan to relocate the airfield in as short a period as possible is desirable” (which form the grounds for the statement that “relocation outside Japan or outside Okinawa Prefecture is inappropriate” as contained in the statement of reasoning for necessity of reclamation) and its reasoning have not been established. Given this situation, this is recognized as being inconsistent with “sufficient value to justify abolishing public waters for land use as the motivation for reclamation.” As outlined above, in accordance with the US Government Accountability Office report and the response to the National Diet by Minister of Defense Inada suggesting that if the conditions of return are not satisfied then MCAS Futenma will not be returned, it has become evident that the reasons for reclamation of the

7

Henoko New Base that were indicated in the statement of reasoning for necessity of reclamation have not been established. Many problems exist— the construction of Henoko New Base would entrench into the future the excessive burden placed on Okinawa by military bases and would represent a serious hindrance to the use of national land in Okinawa Prefecture; the coastal waters of Henoko targeted for reclamation have irreplaceable and precious natural value; the citizens of Okinawa Prefecture are opposed to the reclamation of public waters for construction of the Henoko New Base; and it is still undetermined how many years would be needed to complete construction of Henoko New Base, which would in effect consolidate MCAS Futenma. On the other hand, given that the necessity of military forces in Okinawa Prefecture being stationed at MCAS Futenma is not recognized as inevitable and that the necessity of base relocation to be within Okinawa Prefecture is also not recognized as inevitable, after approval was given for this project it became clear that the grounds for necessity of reclamation indicated in the statement of reasoning for necessity of reclamation have not been established. Accordingly, it is recognized that reclamation of the Henoko coast in order to construct the Henoko New Base (a Marine Corps airfield) does not satisfy the requirement of “appropriate and rational use of national land.” In this regard, the ODB has stated, “We are taking steps to achieve the return of this airfield, and we cannot presume that the airfield will not be returned after the Henoko relocation is complete.” However, it is unclear specifically what kinds of steps have been taken; in fact, at the present time no coordination has been undertaken for “improvement of use of private-sector facilities in times of emergency,” and the specific rationale enabling this goal to be achieved in the future is also unclear. Moreover, regarding the conditions of return, although made public before approval was given for this reclamation project, the response from Minister of Defense Inada has made it clear that if these conditions are not satisfied, even if an alternative base for Futenma is completed, then Futenma will not be returned.

No. 2 Non-fulfillment of Point of Concern 1, which is an obligation attached to approval given for this project 1 Paragraph 1 of the additional clauses (obligations) attached to the approval given for this project (hereinafter, “Point of Concern 1”), states that “Consultation regarding construction work shall be held in advance with Okinawa Prefecture concerning implementation planning for construction.” However, on February 7, 2017, the ODB commenced maritime construction related to the installation of anti-pollution membrane filters, and on April 25th of the same year the ODB

8

commenced revetment construction work, both of which were undertaken without advance consultation concerning implementation planning for construction work, and were recognized as being in breach of Point of Concern 1 (non-fulfillment of obligation). 2 In regard to this, the ODB claims (1) that since the provisions of Article 32 of the Act, which state that “When the conditions of licensing or other disposition under the law concerning reclamation have been violated, licensing shall be revoked,” do not apply mutatis mutandis to approval for the state, under the system of laws, it is not presumed that action would extend as f